quote:Originally posted by asc85: Oh my God! I just saw "The Village", thought it was pretty good, and then checked to see each critic's rating. Was absolutely flabbergasted that Roger Ebert ACTUALLY RATED A FILM POORLY! What happened? Did M. Night piss him off or something?
Maybe, he rated it poorly because hes a good critic and the film sucked....???
This is not exactly the most important opinion in my life, so I'm not going to compose paragraph upon paragraph defending "The Village" and attacking Ebert for you. Somehow, I doubt I'm going to change your mind.
I've made my Ebert comments earlier on these boards, and I think those pretty much encapsulate my feelings.
As for "The Village", I thought it was good, but not great. I was surprised that it received the critical trashing that it did, and didn't think it deserved it. And when Ebert pretty much likes everything out there, and then doesn't like a film that I like, I find that shocking.
Posts: 178 | Location: Mercer County, NJ | Registered: 22 May 2004
I'm not surprised he didnt like the village, the majority of the country didnt like it. Yes, I know he likes a lot of bad movies but if you watch him, he also dislikes many movies. I, personally dont think he's that great of a critic but the village wasnt GREAT so it wasnt overly surprising that he gave it a thumbs down, at least to me.
Posts: 637 | Location: California | Registered: 24 August 2004
I read Ebert's reviews often and I respect his opinion. If he absolutely adores pr greatly dislikes a film, Ebert gives you more reasoning as to why he has chosen this particular film. Read his reviews of Everyone Says I Love You - an underappreciated Woody Allen film or even Owning Mahoney. These are films that he highly praised and you can tell by his writing why these movies stood out to him. There are some other reviews where there is such a distinct praise and love for the films and he allows you to see the film through his eyes. Some others I recall in this vein are Lone Star and Dark City.
I have to admit I disagree with Ebert on many films. The ones that stand out to me the most are Brazil, Blue Velvet and Reservoir Dogs. To this day, I disagree with Ebert's criticism of Blue Velvet and will never understand why he can't see that Brazil is truly a masterpiece.
Roger Ebert is an established critic and is well entitled to his own opinions at this juncture of his career. Like many sportswriters, (did somebody say Dan Shaughnessey?), I'm sure the media critics get to the point in their careers where they just don't give a sh*t like they used to. Now, I'm not saying that Ebert doesn't enjoy movies anymore, he clearly does, (most of them, it seems), but perhaps he's just sick and tired of giving every single half-assed Hollywood filmstrip his best critical eye. To hear Ebert at the Cannes Film Festival is a completely different animal than the one witnessed in the newspaper. (Chicago Sun Times, right?)
The reason that so many people are bothered by him is that he seems to give off an unpleasent odor of condisention. Kind of like, "I'm Roger Ebert and every opinion I have is worth its weight in gold."
Ebert might occasionally give a bad movie a good review or vice versa, but most of the time he's a pretty decent critic. A lot of people see a "bad" review of his and are completely appalled, but it's his opinion. if you dont ilke it, read a review from somebody else.
Posts: 612 | Location: Oregon | Registered: 18 October 2005
I don't agree with all of Ebert's reviews, but as others have said, he is an intelligent, articulate critic who knows film. However, he does march to the beat of his own drummer and I've seen him give some great reviews to mediorce movies and pan some classic films (like Blue Velvet). I think this is why he takes a lot of heat. But, I would in no way call him an idiot or a hack.
----- We were wasps with new wings, now we're bugs in the jar.
Posts: 5474 | Location: Michigan | Registered: 19 June 2005
Ebert is better than most film critics out there, and is at least someone who clearly loves film and his job. Blue Velvet is a terrible film, and though I personally enjoy Brazil and Reservoir Dogs, I understand his criticisms of them.
"If it were beneficial, their father would produce children already circumcised from their mother. Rather, the true circumcision in spirit has become profitable in every respect." -Jesus, from the Gospel Of Thomas
I am a religious viewer of Ebert & Roeper but feel that Ebert is an absolutely awful critic because he likes virtually every film he sees.
And he has an odd way of rating films. For example, he panned WAR OF THE WORLDS, a film I wasn't crazy about either but it was a rare case of me liking a film more than Roger. Roeper pressed him about his pan and I was flabbergasted at Ebert's response. Roeper named a couple of films Ebert disliked that opened last summer and asked Ebert if WOTW was better than those films he panned. Ebert said "yes" but felt that WOTW's wasn't as good as some of Speilberg's earlier movies and that was why he gave a thumb's down and said to get a full picture people have to read his full reviews.
He also takes into considerations a film-maker's intent and then bases his rating on how close the film came to matching the intent. That is why, I guess, so many low-brow films get the heads up from him.
I think the best way to review a film is for the reviewer to tell the reader/viewer his/her opinion of the film. Anything else is irrelevent as far as I'm concerned.
Metacritic Forums 
